Environmental Law Blog

County officials are planning to divide the unincorporated areas of St. Louis County into eight trash collection districts. The hauler who submits the most cost-effective bid will be awarded a three-year contract with the County to provide trash hauling services for one of the eight districts. Some County residents are upset because, they argue, the contracts could put small haulers out of business, thereby increasing the overall cost of trash collection. Additionally, they believe the County's plan eliminates their ability to choose their own trash hauler. On the other hand, proponents of the County's plan maintain that the consolidation of trash hauling schedules will reduce wear and tear on roadways.

St. Louis County is not required to provide trash collection services to the unincorporated areas of the County by state law, but the County enacted its own local ordinance, which requires the County to have a contract with a solid waste collection and hauling service for all of its residents. Section 260.247, RSMo, generally requires political subdivisions, including counties, to give two-year's notice to private entities currently providing trash collection services to an area if the political subdivision expands its collection services into an area currently serviced by private entities.

Opponents to the County's plan cite § 260.247, RSMo as requiring the County to provide the two-year's notice to private haulers. Proponents of the plan claim that the County's home rule charter exempts the County from the statute because it infringes on the County's police power to legislate, or regulate, freely.

What do you think? Should a "home-rule" county be exempt from statutes like this one? What implications would it have on the economy and the environment if certain local government bodies are not subject to the same solid waste management laws as others?

The last post explained the broad ambient air protection inherent in the Clean Air Act and the NAAQS, and this post builds on that information. 

In addition to the national ambient air quality standards as enforced by SIPs or FIPs, states also must enforce New Source Performance Standards, or "NSPS," National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or "NESHAPS," and New Automobile Standards. NSPS apply to specific categories of pollutants that must be regulated if emitted from new stationary, or industrial, sources. Under this program, new pollution sources are even allowed to offset permitted emissions by reducing emissions from old sources in some circumstances. Under the NESHAP, the source of the pollution is irrelevant. States can regulate in many ways to protect human health from hazardous substances, like arsenic, asbestos, benzene, beryllium, and mercury. Because of the New Automobile Standards, new cars have to meet tailpipe emission standards, which call for a 90% reduction in emissions.

In addition to the regulatory controls SIPs provide to bring nonattainment regions into compliance with the NAAQs, states must also prevent attainment regions from deteriorating into nonattainment regions. To achieve this goal, states must designate each air quality control region or portion thereof as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant. If a new pollution source wants to emit any pollution into a region classified as attainment, then the new source must obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or "PSD," permit. PSD permits have successfully prevented attainment regions from earning a nonattainment classification across the country.

As you can see, the state and federal clean air laws are quite complex.  We have only just scratched the surface with this introductory overview of the Clean Air Act.  Let us know if you want to learn more about how the law protects the air we breathe.

Each day, Americans benefit from the environmental laws and regulations passed by federal, state and local governments. Unfortunately, those laws and regulations can be cumbersome to read and understand. So the Attorney General's Office has put together a primer on each of the major, federal environmental regulatory schemes. Today, we will talk about the Clean Air Act. In future posts, we will discuss other areas of environmental law, like the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Clean Air Act, located at 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq., is largely based on regional ambient air quality standards. Ambient air is the outside air you breathe each and every day. Under the Clean Air Act, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop ambient air quality standards for each of six criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants are sulfur oxides, particulate matter (commonly referred to as smog or soot), carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and lead. The criteria pollutants were selected because of the dangerous effect they can have on human health if exposure reaches certain levels.

In order to implement the national ambient air quality standards, or "NAAQS," the Clean Air Act allows states to develop their own State Implementation Plans, or "SIPs." The SIP must provide regulatory controls designed to meet the ambient air quality standards found in the Clean Air Act according to air quality control regions. Generally speaking, the SIP can provide stricter regulatory controls if the state deems it necessary in order to comply with the NAAQs in certain air quality control regions. In Missouri, however, that is not the case.  Section 643.055, RSMo, basically precludes the Missouri Air Conservation Commission from enacting requirements that are stricter or that will be imposed sooner than mandated by federal law.  In any event, each air quality control region is categorized as attainment if it is meeting the NAAQs; nonattainment if is not meeting the NAAQs; or non-classifiable if the EPA does not have sufficient data to classify the region as attainment or nonattainment. The EPA has the option to approve or deny each state's SIP based on whether it believes the state's SIP will adequately implement the Clean Air Act's goal of achieving attainment in all of the nation's air quality control regions. If the EPA denies the SIP, then the EPA must develop a Federal Implementation Plan, or "FIP" for the state.

Lead mining began in Missouri in 1720.  Today, Missouri's Lead Belt is the largest lead-producing area in the world.  After nearly 300 years of mining and smelting, however, the EPA will get tough on lead emissions in the air.  According to the St. Louis Post, the new standard proposed by EPA will be 80-93% more stringent than the current one. 

The health risks posed by lead -- particularly to children -- are well-documented.  So "getting the lead out" seems like a no-brainer.  But it isn't that simple.  As with Newton's Third Law of physics, for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The environmental and public health benefits can be achieved only with increased costs for lead producers (and other companies that emit lead) to achieve emissions that meet the new standard.  The industry may pass those costs on to consumers or workers in one way or another.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't move ahead with environmental progress, only that we must be cognizant of how such changes affect all Missouri citizens.  As you follow this blog, you will see that this is a common theme in environmental law.  No progress is made in a vacuum.

With that in mind, what will this new standard mean for the communities with children affected by smelting, and what about those that rely on the mines and smelter for jobs and taxes for public services?  Since changes are being made for the benefit of all Americans, should others share in any financial burdens faced by these Missouri communities and citizens?  Tell us what you think. 

Missouri is blessed with abundant water resources.  In fact, for most of Missouri's history water has been regarded as a "common enemy to all" by the courts because of the great flood dangers posed by our many rivers and streams.  Today, the flood danger remains real and we have more than enough water to meet our needs.  While flooding will always be a risk we live with here in Missouri, the same cannot be said for our abundant water supply.  Shortages are on the horizon, particularly in Southwest Missouri.  But Missouri laws governing water use were written many years ago -- in the time of plenty -- and are of limited utility now. 

The basic rule is that a landowner may make reasonable use of water on or under his land.  If a water use is detrimental to a downstream landowner and is not reasonable (i.e., wasteful), then the downstream landowner can sue his upstream neighbor for relief.  Litigation results have been unpredictable, yielding a common law patchwork quilt with minimal protection for private water use, and no protection for public water supply.  Under Missouri statutes, the state has no express power to govern how individuals, businesses or water supply districts conserve or use water.  The only role for the state is to register "major water users." There is no penalty for failure to register no matter how much water a user withdraws.   

Is it time for Missouri to re-examine its water resources law with an eye to the future?  Or will the free market ultimately ensure that water is used appropriately in Missouri? 

The Kansas City Star recently published a memo from lawyers for Smithfield Foods Inc. outlining its options for handling numerous lawsuits alleging that the company's operations are a nuisance here in Missouri.  Apparently, the company inadvertantly sent this frank memo to the newspaper in an e-mail.  The memo to the company's president provides insight into how one large corporation makes decisions in environmental litigation, and can be viewed with the news story by clicking here. 

Under Missouri law, a company has a duty to protect its shareholders from financial loss.  Like all businesses operating in Missouri, it also must ensure that its acts and omissions are not a nuisance for neighbors.  How can citizens protect their property rights and quality of life when dealing with a corporation that must take the bottom line into account?  And how can a corporate citizen satisfy sometimes competing demands imposed by law?  Tell us what you think. 

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are agricultural facilities that house and feed a large number of animals in a confined area for 45 days or more during any 12-month period. The most common Missouri CAFOs produce pork. CAFOs have some benefits. They allow companies to more efficiently produce the meat we find in grocery stores, thereby reducing consumer costs. Moreover, some farmers believe that the promotion of CAFOs is a logical, rural economic development strategy.

Unfortunately, the benefits from CAFOs sometimes result in environmental degradation. CAFOs can affect our water, our ambient air, and our quality of life in rural Missouri. In fact, in 2003, the Nation's 238,000 CAFOs produced 500 million tons of manure. If discharged illegally, manure contaminated with antibiotics, pathogens, nutrients, and hormones can find its way into our surface and ground water.  And -- as many CAFO neighbors have told us -- CAFOs can cause excessive odors.

For an interesting perspective touting the benefits of CAFOs, and an opposing view in response, click on these links to read letters written by your fellow Missourians and recently published in the Joplin Globe.

Tell us what you think. Are CAFOs as bad as some critics portray them or is the economic benefit worth the environmental costs?

In November 1962, Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wisconsin) had an idea. He approached Attorney General Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy with his idea-President Kennedy should go on a national conservation tour in an effort to bring environmental issues into the political "limelight." The Attorney General and President Kennedy liked the idea, so the President embarked on a five-day, eleven-state conservation tour in September 1963. President Kennedy's conservation tour did not blossom into the environmental windfall for which Senator Nelson had hoped, so he tried again. At a conference in Seattle, Washington in September 1970, Senator Nelson announced that he would participate in a grassroots demonstration on behalf of the environment during the spring of 1970. He invited every American to participate. More than 20 million demonstrators gathered in local communities to bring political attention to environmental issues on April 22, 1970. In response to Earth Day's success and the growing consciousness of environmental problems, Congress amended the Clean Air Act. Some critics said that Congress reacted too quickly by rushing regionally-based ambient air quality standards through the legislative process. Others maintained that the Clean Air Act corrected previous pollution control strategies that had failed and effectively brought air pollution control to the forefront of Congressional interest. What do you think? Did Senator Nelson achieve his original goal? Does Earth Day generate sustained environmental and conservation interest? Was the Clean Air Act, Earth Day's first major "result," a success?